UN Says Glyphosate 'Unlikely' to Cause Cancer, Industry Ties To

UN Says Glyphosate ‘Unlikely’ to Cause Cancer, Industry Ties to Report Called Into Question

Lorraine Chow May 17, 2016 Does glyphosate cause cancer or not? A new joint report from experts at the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organiza- tion (FAO) and the World Health Orga- nization’s (WHO) Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) has concluded that the controversial chemical is “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet.”

The new review appears to contradict the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which concluded in Activists have been relabelling bottles of March 2015 that glyphosate “probably” Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller in garden causes cancer in humans. centers and DIY shops across the UK. Roundup contains glyphosate, a chemical that the World Activists have been relabelling bottles of Health Organization’s International Agency for Monsanto’s Roundup weedkiller in gar- Research on Cancer has shown to be “probably den centers and DIY shops across the UK. carcinogenic.” Photo credit: Global Justice Now Roundup contains glyphosate, a chemical that the World Health Organization’s Inter- national Agency for Research on Cancer has shown to be “probably carcinogenic.” The WHO said that while the “IARC reviews Photo credit: Global Justice Now published studies to identify potential cancer hazards, it does not estimate the level of risk to So is there a mixup between the two bod- the population associated with exposure to the ies? In a Q&A issued alongside the new hazard.” On the other hand, the JMPR “conducts report, the WHO acknowledged that the an evaluation or a re-evaluation of the safety of conclusions arrived at by the IARC and the that chemical as it is used in agriculture and oc- FAO/JMPR were “different, yet comple- curs in food.” mentary.” The IARC assessed glyphosate as a “hazard” while the joint group looked Wired further explained the differences between at “risk.” the two assessments: The IARC studies whether chemicals can Glyphosate is the main ingredient in Mon- cause cancer under any possible situation— santo’s blockbuster product, Roundup, and realistic or not—while the joint meeting’s is also found in herbicides manufactured by report looks at whether glyphosate can cause Syngenta and Dow. The chemical is applied cancer in real-life conditions, like if you eat to “Roundup Ready” crops around that world cereal every morning made from corn treated that are genetically modifi ed to resist applica- with glyphosate. One of these reports is, by tions of the powerful weedkiller. design, much more relevant to your life than the other. Monsanto has vehemently defended the safety of the product ever since the IARC issued The IARC is also, by design, not supposed to their report last year and has demanded a re- make recommendations to the public. It as- traction from WHO. Yesterday, the St. Louis- sesses “hazard,” which in scientifi c jargon, based company issued a statement following means something very different than “risk.” the new review, saying they were “not sur- David Eastmond, a toxicologist at the Uni- prised by JMPR’s positive conclusion.” versity of California, Riverside, uses sharks to illustrate the difference. If you have people “We welcome this rigorous assessment of gawking at sharks swimming around a tank in glyphosate by another program of the WHO, an aquarium, the sharks are a hazard, but they which is further evidence that this important pose little risk. If you have a surfer on the herbicide does not cause cancer,” Phil Miller, beach with a shark, now that shark is both a Monsanto’s vice president for global regula- hazard and a risk. tory and government affairs, said. “IARC’s classifi cation was inappropriate and incon- To the IARC, a shark has sharp teeth and sistent with the science on glyphosate. Based powerful jaws, and the agency doesn’t care if on the overwhelming weight of evidence, the you’re at the beach or at an aquarium. “The JMPR has reaffi rmed the fi ndings of regulato- problem with using hazard is that it may bear ry agencies around the world that glyphosate no immediate relation to anything in the real is unlikely to pose a cancer risk.” world,” says Geoffrey Kabat, a cancer epi- demiologist at the Albert Einstein College of Greenpeace EU has questioned whether the Medicine. new assessment from the FAO/JMPR has been muddied with industry ties. The FAO/JMPR also said that glyphosate is unlikely to be genotoxic in humans, which In a press release, the environmental group means it won’t harm a cell’s genetic material alleges that at least two experts involved and lead to cancer. According to the groups, in the evaluation, Alan Boobis and Angelo glyphosate has an acceptable daily intake of Moretto, have ties to the International Life up to 1 milligram for every kilogram of body Sciences Institute (ILSI) in Europe, which weight. Two other pesticides reviewed by the “receives a majority of its operating and re- committee, diazinon and malathion, were also search funding from private companies, in- found to be unlikely to be carcinogenic. cluding glyphosate producers Dow and Monsanto,” and that “ILSI’s Health and Envi- One document that appears to be ILSI’s 2012 ronmental Sciences Institute (HESI) is primar- major donor list shows total contributions of ily funded by private companies, including $2.4 million, with more than $500,000 each glyphosate producers Dow, Monsanto and from CropLife International [an international Syngenta.” agribusiness trade association] and from Mon- santo. Greenpeace stated: USRTK also named JMPR panel member Al- Alan Boobis is currently the Vice-President of dert Piersma, a senior scientist at the National ILSI Europe. He is the co-chair of the RISK21 Institute for Public Health and the Environ- project run by ILSI’s Health and Environmen- ment in the Netherlands and an advisor to tal Sciences Institute (HESI). Boobis has been ILSI’s HESI projects. an active member of ILSI over many years and also acted as a consultant for companies A coalition of environmental and consumer such as Sumitomo Chemical. groups—Natural Resources Defense Council, Friends of the Earth US, Friends of the Earth Angelo Moretto is a member of the steer- Europe, the Center for Biological Diversity, ing team of the RISK21 project. He is also the Center for Food Safety, Pesticide Action a member of the HESI Board of Trustees. Network of North America, Pesticide Action Moretto resigned from an EFSA panel on Network UK, Food & Water Watch and Toxic pesticides after reportedly failing to declare a Free North Carolina—signed a joint letter fi nancial interest related to the assessment of in June to urge the WHO to “ensure that the chemical substances. panel is free from confl icts and other biases that may unduly infl uence the work of the Food-industry watchdog group U.S. Right panel.” to Know (USRTK) also highlighted in a report posted last week that the ILSI’s board of “The JMPR’s analysis may have signifi cant trustees includes executives from Monsanto, impacts to those with a fi nancial interest in Syngenta, DuPont, Nestle and others. The selling glyphosate-based products, thus we Institute also counts a long list of global food are very concerned that several members and chemical corporations as part of its long of the task force who may have confl icts of list of member and supporting companies. interest,” said Lori Ann Burd, Environmental Health Director at the Center for Biological According to the USRTK report: Diversity.

Internal ILSI documents, obtained by a state “Time and time again we have seen corporate public records request, suggest that ILSI has interests infl uence major decisions affecting been generously funded by the agrichemical the health of consumers and the environ- industry. ment,” Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, said. “We will not stand by and watch WHO- The EPA said that the report was “inadvertent- IARC’s conclusion on glyphosate become wa- ly” released and its “assessment will be peer tered down due to the presence of task force reviewed and completed by end of 2016.” members tied to major biotech fi rms. Farmers, Monsanto is also facing a mounting number farmworkers and communities who live and of glyphosate-cancer lawsuits, including a work near farms sprayed with glyphosate are new one fi led by four Nebraskan agricultural depending on a rigorous, independent review workers who claim that Roundup gave them of this chemical and the WHO must provide non-Hodgkin lymphoma after many years of it.” exposure. The plaintiffs have also accused Monsanto of purposely misleading consumers Greenpeace EU also alleges that most scien- about the safety of its $4.8 billion product. tists involved in EFSA’s glyphosate assessment refused to be named. Meanwhile in Europe, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) issued their own “The agencies contradicting the WHO cancer report on glyphosate in November saying that warning seem to either rely on offi cials who it is “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard prefer not to be named, or lack a watertight to humans,” contradicting the IARC’s report. policy to protect their impartiality,” Green- The opposing conclusions have touched off peace EU food policy director Franziska intense controversy as the weedkiller is due to Achterberg said. “Any decision affecting mil- for a decision on re-licensing in the European lions of people should be based on fully trans- Union. parent and independent science that isn’t tied to corporate interests. It would be irrespon- Later this week, the European Commission— sible to ignore the warnings on glyphosate and the executive body of the European Union— to re-licence this pesticide without any restric- will meet to discuss relicensing of glyphosate tions to protect the public and the environ- in the EU. As EcoWatch reported, the com- ment.” mission reportedly plans to ‘OK’ the chemical for another nine years despite opposition from Glyphosate is at the forefront of major debate European Parliament, which voted on April in the U.S. and the UK. 13 to oppose EU relicensing. Countries such as France, Sweden, Italy, the Netherlands and The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency now Germany, as well as 1.4 million people (EPA), which has reviewed glyphosate sev- have called on an EU ban of glyphosate. eral times before and concluded it has “low toxicity for humans,” is at the center of an Glyphosate is the “most widely applied pes- investigation after the EPA’s Cancer Assess- ticide worldwide,” and it is so ubiquitous ment Review Committee published then sud- that traces of the chemical can be found in denly pulled a report online last month about human urine. The Green Party of European glyphosate concluding that the chemical is not Parliament recently announced results of their likely carcinogenic to humans. “MEPee” test and found that 48 MEPs from 13 different European Union countries tested positive for glyphosate reside in their urine. “On average, the MEPs had 1.7 micrograms/ liter of glyphosate in their urine, 17 times higher than the European drinking water norm (0.1 microgram/litre). This means that every- one we tested was way above the limit for residues of pesticides in drinking water,” the party noted.

The experiment was inspired by a German study “Urinale 2015,” which sampled glyphosate concentrations in urine from more than 2,000 participants and detected glyphosate concentrations in urine between ﬁ ve and 42 times over the maximum value of residues for drinking water in Europe.